I would've killed every single stingray with my bare hands to save Steve Irwin's life.
2007-01-03 16:54:54 · 19 answers · asked by JustDefend 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
not a normal person, but Irwin was a celebrity.
2007-01-04 17:14:24 · answer #1 · answered by Aaron t 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are not the most dominant predator, we just have the biggest toys. Stingrays have a purpose in this world, just like Steve Irwin had a purpose. His purpose must have been achieved. It is underevolved to blame all stingrays for the actions of one creature who, from its perspective, was probably just defending its on lively hood.
2007-01-03 17:24:13 · answer #2 · answered by ___ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Plus Steve Irwin went into their territory, Not the other way around.
2007-01-03 20:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by fifimsp1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people that answered yes to this question suck @$$.
Here's a quote: "The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few." Even if it's animals involved, you don't eradicate an entire race from the planet just for a single life.
Besides, aren't there less drastic ways to save that person? There's always a way if you think about it.
2007-01-03 17:27:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I wouldn't. And as for killing every stingray to save Irwin all I can say is 'get a life', he is only one man. Would you kill every drunk driver to save a road toll victim, or would you kill every bee to save someone with a bee allergy. I wouldn't think so.
2007-01-03 17:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by Arthur N 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because that entire species might be critical to every other human being's survival...
Also, what am I, some kind of lifesaver? Save yourself! I'm not going to go and kill countless innocent animals just to save someone, I've got other things to do..
2007-01-04 01:37:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question grew to become into timed correct to jibe with the 60 minutes presentation on wiping out malnutrition in Africa. Distribution of a paste containing peanut butter, powdered milk, and a diet-mineral supplement can go a protracted way in direction of assuaging mortality from malnutrition. the concern is that the folk it incredibly is being given to in many circumstances have 8 little ones in line with kinfolk. except they may be confident to shrink this back to a minimum of one or 2, all we are doing is suspending and irritating the crash. by skill of attempting to do the main appropriate factor, we are making the concern extra severe. i'm no longer asserting to offer up feeding the harmless, just to apply a sprint intelligence approximately what we are doing. like the ravenous little ones, the endangered animals and flowers had no longer something to do with their problem. in assessment to them, the themes of the endangered species have been imposed on them from outdoors. the in many circumstances going on reason is loss of habitat led to by skill of human greed and shortsightedness. in the single occasion, we are exacerbating the concern; in the different, we are relieving it. subsequently i'd somewhat help an endangered or threatened species than one that has reached pest inhabitants ranges.
2016-10-29 23:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why? the Stingray felt threaten it was a natural response, no one was to blame.
And no there are too few humans worth saving.
And Steve was one of those few that trully deserved to live.
2007-01-04 01:20:15 · answer #8 · answered by Engel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Steve Irwin wouldn't want that.
2007-01-03 17:03:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Judging from several responses from several other profiles, it appears that is indeed the case with a sizeable proportion of YAnswers.
"Oil Production: Corporation v Community: To produce or to cease?" in the Answerer's profile within has demonstrated a clear preference to preserve humanity at the expense of other living beings.
2007-01-04 04:40:07 · answer #10 · answered by pax veritas 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋